International Society For The Scholarship Of Teaching & Learning (ISSOTL)http://hdl.handle.net/2022/67922018-02-22T05:37:01Z2018-02-22T05:37:01ZLasting Effects of a Graduate Pedagogy Course on the Development of Teacher-ScholarsBraun, MarkHeacock, IsaacKearns, Katherine D.Miller, Lauren E.O’Loughlin, Valerie DeanSullivan, Carol Subiñohttp://hdl.handle.net/2022/69382010-05-06T22:30:15Z2009-10-01T00:00:00ZLasting Effects of a Graduate Pedagogy Course on the Development of Teacher-Scholars
Braun, Mark; Heacock, Isaac; Kearns, Katherine D.; Miller, Lauren E.; O’Loughlin, Valerie Dean; Sullivan, Carol Subiño
While graduate pedagogy courses may result in specific teaching behaviors in the short term, little is known whether these scholarly teaching behaviors and attitudes endure over time. Multiple evidenced-based assessments of pedagogy courses which continue well past the completion of the course can demonstrate the ongoing development of students’ perceptions of teaching and learning and students’ progression as teacher-scholars.
This poster summarizes an investigation exploring the lasting effects of a graduate pedagogy course entitled MSCI M620: Pedagogical Methods in Health Sciences. This course has been offered for two semesters and a total of sixteen graduate students from a variety of science-related disciplines enrolled in the course. We examined whether the course caused students to:
1) Develop more complex and refined attitudes regarding student learning;
2) Evaluate their current teaching methods and explore alternative teaching strategies;
3) Assess their teaching effectiveness;
4) Plan to be involved in a public teaching resource network; and
5) Develop lasting attitudes about scholarly teaching.
2009-10-01T00:00:00ZVirtual Inorganic Pedagogical Electronic ResourceBenatan, EthanDene, JezmynneEppley, HilaryGeselbracht, MargretJamieson, BetsyJohnson, AdamReisner, BarbaraStewart, Joanne L.Watson, LoriWilliams, Scotthttp://hdl.handle.net/2022/69372010-05-06T22:30:15Z2009-10-01T00:00:00ZVirtual Inorganic Pedagogical Electronic Resource
Benatan, Ethan; Dene, Jezmynne; Eppley, Hilary; Geselbracht, Margret; Jamieson, Betsy; Johnson, Adam; Reisner, Barbara; Stewart, Joanne L.; Watson, Lori; Williams, Scott
The deep yet narrow training received by most chemistry faculty can make curricular innovation at the undergraduate level difficult. Faculty need current knowledge in a broad range of subdisciplines and effective approaches for teaching outside their “comfort zone.” To support innovations in teaching, the new resource VIPEr (www.ionicviper.org) was created, which combines a digital library of learning objects with social networking tools to form a rich virtual community of practice amongst chemistry faculty worldwide.
2009-10-01T00:00:00ZThe Use of the Audience Response System in Anatomy Laboratory Practical ExaminationsPolich, SusanCario, Cara H.Monroe, Mary S.Rodriguez, Carmen M.http://hdl.handle.net/2022/69362010-05-06T22:30:14Z2009-10-01T00:00:00ZThe Use of the Audience Response System in Anatomy Laboratory Practical Examinations
Polich, Susan; Cario, Cara H.; Monroe, Mary S.; Rodriguez, Carmen M.
The Audience Response System (ARS) has been used at our institution for approximately five years. ARS was initially used in the large lecture classroom for two purposes - to engage students’ interest in a topic and collect answers to multiple-choice question quizzes and tests (Stowell & Nelson, 2007; Morling, McAuliffe, Cohen, & DiLorenzo, 2008). The use of ARS has not yet been explored in the small classroom using non-multiple choice questions.
An anatomy laboratory practical examination (“practical”) traditionally involves small numbers of students using paper-and-pencil examinations with fill-in-the-blank questions. Using ARS to record student answers in a practical requires changing both the way ARS has been traditionally used and the way the practical has been administered. The use of ARS for the fill-in-the-blank questions requires students be given a numerical list with possible answers. This, in essence, changes the type of question from fill-in-the-blank to matching and changes the level of cognition needed from “recall” to “recognize” (Anderson, 1999).
We had concerns that students would engage with the material in a different, less substantial, manner once they realized a different level of cognition was needed to pass the practicals. We were also concerned that the emerging use of this technology would add a new level of stress to an otherwise already stressful atmosphere, especially since two of the four instructors had little-to-no experience with the ARS. Different engagement with the material and additional stress might be recognized by a change in scores on the practicals.
The aims of this study, then, were to determine if 1). course instructors were a factor in determining practical examination scores and 2). grades from students who used the ARS to record answers in practicals were significantly different from students who used the traditional paper-and-pencil testing method.
2009-10-01T00:00:00ZAn Engagement Levels Framework To Foster Interactions Across SOTL CollaboratoriesCarey, TomLopes, Valeriehttp://hdl.handle.net/2022/69272010-05-03T16:36:23Z2009-10-01T00:00:00ZAn Engagement Levels Framework To Foster Interactions Across SOTL Collaboratories
Carey, Tom; Lopes, Valerie
Regional SoTL collaboratories can provide a natural fit with political boundaries and funding opportunities; interconnections across regions can provide critical mass to sustain ongoing community interactions. It is unrealistic to expect these facilities to use a common technical platform or to adopt common social organizations, so a Framework for interconnection would be valuable. Our prototype Engagement Levels Framework includes four levels of faculty involvement, each with differing facilities to support research and knowledge mobilization:
Cooperative Research Projects: Faculty who engage with a Teaching Research Collaboratory through specific short-term supported projects, as individuals and as teams, primarily focused on enhancing the learning experience and student success in their own courses and with some secondary focus on enhancing teaching practice for their colleagues at the institutional or provincial levels (and beyond). This secondary focus requires some effort to distinguish localized versus generalizable factors contributing to the success or limitations of an intervention in teaching.
Practitioner/Researcher Core Communities: Faculty with an ongoing mutual engagement as a community, functioning both as an inquiry community to enhance the learning experience and student success in their own courses and as the core of a larger community of practitioner/researchers in research-led teaching, including developing and sustaining knowledge mobilization resources to enhance research-led teaching practices and knowledge by their faculty colleagues.
Knowledge Exchange Networks: Faculty who participate periodically in knowledge mobilization for their own research-led teaching and become regular contributors to a knowledge mobilization network, motivated by a spirit of scholarly reciprocity and by explicit engagement initiatives led by the core Practitioner/Researcher community members described above.
Collections of Research-Informed Resources for Teaching: To achieve a true ‘network effect’ in application of the knowledge and resources for research-led teaching, facilities must be provided to engage many more faculty in occasional access. These faculty seek to improve the learning experience and student success in their own courses, but do not regularly contribute from their own expertise to extend those resources.
The key ideas underlying this framework include the following:
• Modularity in the framework allows multiple platform options at each level
• Embedding of research results into adaptable artifacts – curriculum plans, learning activity designs, open educational resources, etc. – promotes knowledge mobilization;
• Early involvement of resource creators with colleagues promotes reusability and adaptability of such resources, and optimizes institutional investment in faculty innovation and scholarship;
• Ongoing knowledge exchange is fostered by a focus on object-centered conversations to extend knowledge, adapt resources and share insights;
• Collection management enables occasional users to find the resources they seek and to encounter related teaching knowledge along with those resources;
• Explicit efforts by the collaboratory community will support enriched levels of engagement by colleagues, to insure a sustainable and dynamic community.
Of course, such facilities can only enable and support widespread adaptation of research-informed resources and mobilization of the underlying knowledge about teaching and learning. We must in parallel work with partners in our regions and disciplines to provide stronger rationale and motivation for mobilizing SoTL as research-led teaching.
2009-10-01T00:00:00Z